orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (01/03/85)
> > > > Should these people be forced to be educated? Should I be forced to > > provide their education (thru taxes, etc.)? The idea that the > > initial use of force should be utilized to solve problems is exactly > > what libertarians are arguing against. Force should only be used to > > respond to attempts to infringe on an individuals rights to life, > > liberty, and property. > What if the people in a community jointly decide that they would rather all contribute towards the education of the children in their community? Don't they have the right to do this? Or don't people in groups have any rights at all? What if the people working in a plant all decide that they would be benefitted by contributing money every month to a union to defend their group interests? Most union representation votes are approved by over 80% of the membership. Libertarianism really accepts no concept of community or even group rights or responsibilities. Yet the fact is that people often accomplish more by working as a group than as a bunch of isolated individuals. In fact, many tasks MUST be accomplished by a group with its division of labor and the pooling of group resources. This means that some people HAVE to compromise and sacrifice some of their freedom to accomplish such goals. I happen to think that education of a new generation is important and worth paying taxes for, even if currently I have no children of my own. A vast majority of people agree and vote for bond issues for public education on a regular basis. I think they have the right to agree collectively and democratically to do so. tim sevener whuxl!orb
mag@whuxlm.UUCP (Gray Michael A) (01/04/85)
> = Tim Sevener > What if the people in a community jointly decide that they would rather > all contribute towards the education of the children in their community? > Don't they have the right to do this? Or don't people in groups have > any rights at all? What if the people working in a plant all decide that > they would be benefitted by contributing money every month to a union to > defend their group interests? Most union representation votes > are approved by over 80% of the membership. > The key word to a libertarian here is "all." If a community of people ALL wish to contribute, I doubt if any libertarian would object -- they don't oppose voluntary actions. The use of words above is a little confusing. One sentence says, "What if the people in a plant ALL decide. . ." and the following sentence says "approved by over 80% . . ." Well, 80% is not equal to all. They are two different cases. As a practical matter, if 80% of a workforce voted for union representation, then why can't that 80% just join the union without coercing the other 20% into joining? I'm sure that management would listen very seriously to the wishes of such a majority. People in groups should have identical rights to people not in groups. If you see a value in contributing to the education of children, go ahead and do so. I don't think anyone will want to stop you. I personally woud applaud you, since I think an educated populace is extremely valuable. It's not worth initiating the use of force, though. I donate to my college, and I solicit others to do so as well, but I only want voluntary contributions. > Libertarianism really accepts no concept of community or even group rights > or responsibilities. Yet the fact is that people often accomplish more > by working as a group than as a bunch of isolated individuals. In fact, > many tasks MUST be accomplished by a group with its division of labor > and the pooling of group resources. The above paragraph is a blatant distortion of any libertarian position I have ever read. Somehow, the author seems to be trying to relate the second and third sentences to the first, with the "Yet the fact is. ." statement. The implication seems to be that being a libertarian means that one believes that no group action is possible, and that building a skyscraper or a car should be done by one person or not at all. Every libertarian writer I have read is strongly in favor of VOLUNTARY cooperation among groups of individuals. The above paragraph is *really* misleading. I have some problems with pieces of libertarianism, but the accusations and implications above are totally unsupportable. The only grain of truth I can detect is the assertion about "group rights." Groups shouldn't have any rights that individuals don't have. They may have power or influence (as in the Alabama bus boycotts), but those are not rights. Groups can easily have responsibilities. If a corporation(one type of group) commits a tort, then the corporation is responsible. If it commits fraud, it is responsible. etc. etc. etc. > This means that some people HAVE > to compromise and sacrifice some of their freedom to accomplish such > goals. What is the meaning of the "HAVE" here? Does it mean some people have to be forced to pay for it? Or does it mean that if you want something that costs money, you have to pay the money? There is no sacrifice necessary if the money is given voluntarily. If I have kids, I'll want them educated. I'll be prepared to pay the cost of their education, although I might accept charity to help. What I will not accept is money obtained by coercing others. This means any children I have will be privately educated. > I happen to think that education of a new generation is important > and worth paying taxes for, even if currently I have no children of my own. I agree if the word "taxes" is deleted. > A vast majority of people agree and vote for bond issues for public > education on a regular basis. I think they have the right to agree > collectively and democratically to do so. Sure they have the right to do so, as long as the bonds are not repaid by tax money. I support their right to set up whatever schools they want. What I object to is their coercing others to participate. Why does their interest in free education give them a "right" to force others to share that interest? > > tim sevener whuxl!orb Mike Gray, BTL, WH whuxlm!mag
mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (01/04/85)
> From orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) Wed Dec 31 16:00:00 196 > What if the people in a community jointly decide that they would rather > all contribute towards the education of the children in their community? > Don't they have the right to do this? Or don't people in groups have > any rights at all? What if the people working in a plant all decide that > they would be benefitted by contributing money every month to a union to > defend their group interests? Fine. All of these groups are free to do as they please, until they start stepping on other groups of people. > Most union representation votes are approved by over 80% of the membership. Great. What about the other 20%? Do they have to join the Union if they want to keep their job? What if they would rather be in a different union? > Libertarianism really accepts no concept of community or even group rights > or responsibilities. Bull. Communities and groups can decide to take on responsibilities if they so wish. What they *cannot* do is coerce others into taking on those responsibilities. > Yet the fact is that people often accomplish more > by working as a group than as a bunch of isolated individuals. In fact, > many tasks MUST be accomplished by a group with its division of labor > and the pooling of group resources. This means that some people HAVE > to compromise and sacrifice some of their freedom to accomplish such > goals. All very true, but it's also true of individuals. The important question is whether or not the group can *force* others sacrifice some of their freedom for the goals - especially when the person in question disagrees with the goals. <mike Address: from ea!mwm to ucbjade!mwm Interface: from notes to news (sob) - still learning...
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (01/09/85)
> The key word to a libertarian here is "all." If a community of people > ALL wish to contribute, I doubt if any libertarian would object -- they > don't oppose voluntary actions. The reason that democracy and a certain amount of compromise is necessary is because ALL (100%) of the people in a group will never agree to ANYTHING! Have you ever been in a group of people in which everyone totally agreed? Such an event may occur but it is comparatively rare and limited to small groups. Therefore when disagreements over which actions the group should take arise and decisions must be made, then a democratic vote seems one of the best ways of making such decisions. Such situations constantly occur. In our own field for example: a Computer Center often has to choose to get one mainframe out of the vast range of mainframe computers offered on the market. Everyone will not be satisfied with whatever computer is selected. But they may all benefit by pooling together to get one computer rather than many which are less efficient. At the same time the Computer Center cannot possibly get every computer its users desire. Thus comes the problem of choice and the problem of politics. These are precisely the sorts of issues that political philosophy is about. What is the best way to make such decisions? How can one insure that everyone's benefit is maximized while no individuals rights are trampled? I happen to think democracy is the best means of solving such problems. To pretend that there never are such problems is to wish away the whole field of politics and its paradoxes. tim sevener whuxl!orb
mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (01/11/85)
>From orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) Wed Dec 31 16:00:00 1969 > The reason that democracy and a certain amount of compromise is necessary > is because ALL (100%) of the people in a group will never agree to > ANYTHING! Have you ever been in a group of people in which everyone > totally agreed? Such an event may occur but it is comparatively rare > and limited to small groups. Therefore when disagreements over which > actions the group should take arise and decisions must be made, then > a democratic vote seems one of the best ways of making such decisions. No problems there - democracy is an excellent way for a group to decide what to do. However, that doesn't give the group the right to include people who don't want to be in the group. The union example is a nice starting point. The 80% who want to be in a union have the right to join/form a union, and cast votes among themselves as to how they should act as a group. They don't have the right to force the obligations of being a member on others who don't want the benefits at that price. Likewise, should some member of the union decide that he is unhappy with the price/benefit ratio, he should be able to opt out. <mike
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (01/14/85)
> <mike (single > is <mike ,double >> is me, tim sevener) > Address: from ea!mwm to ucbjade!mwm > > From orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) Wed Dec 31 16:00:00 196 > > Most union representation votes are approved by over 80% of the membership. > > Great. What about the other 20%? Do they have to join the Union if they want > to keep their job? What if they would rather be in a different union? If they don't want to join the Union then they also should get none of the Union's privileges-- job protection, increased wages, etc. If they wish to be represented by a different Union then they can call for a vote on changing their Union and hope that they win the election. That's the way democracy works. It also happens to be the way, tho in a different sense that stock ownership works. Those with the majority of the stock can set policy for the whole corporation. If other stock owners disagree then they can either try to persuade a majority of the shareholders or sell their stock. > > Libertarianism really accepts no concept of community or even group rights > > or responsibilities. > > Bull. Communities and groups can decide to take on responsibilities if they > so wish. What they *cannot* do is coerce others into taking on those > responsibilities. > Then how are those responsibilites to be allocated? Being subject to certain responsibilities is part of being in a group or community. Let us take a very simple everyday example- the common household or family. Certain odious tasks such as washing dishes, doing the laundry, etc. have to be done to keep the household going. Is it unreasonable for the members of the household to demand that all the members pull their weight? What should be done if somebody complains that they are being "repressed" by being expected to wash the dishes their share of the time? Is this "coercion" or part of the cost of being in a group? tim sevener whuxl!orb
mag@whuxlm.UUCP (Gray Michael A) (01/15/85)
> > = Me, Mike Gray > = Tim Sevener = Me again > > The key word to a libertarian here is "all." If a community of people > > ALL wish to contribute, I doubt if any libertarian would object -- they > > don't oppose voluntary actions. > > The reason that democracy and a certain amount of compromise is necessary > is because ALL (100%) of the people in a group will never agree to > ANYTHING! Have you ever been in a group of people in which everyone > totally agreed? Such an event may occur but it is comparatively rare > and limited to small groups. Therefore when disagreements over which > actions the group should take arise and decisions must be made, then > a democratic vote seems one of the best ways of making such decisions. > > Such situations constantly occur. In our own field for example: > a Computer Center often has to choose to get one mainframe out of > the vast range of mainframe computers offered on the market. [ There follows a narrative where a compromise is reached that pleases some and not others. Since Tim and I work for the same company, I can verify the accuracy of the example. ] First of all, you are talking about a community that you and I voluntarily joined. I know that at Bell Labs, we sometimes have limited resources and have to make compromises. But here, if you or I think the compromises or decisions are bad enough, we can walk away! I look at the integrated sum of good and bad things the company does, and right now, the good far outweighs the bad, so I stay. NOBODY is using force in your example! This is fine! The company owns the money and should be able to spend it as they see fit. In your example, NO ONE is forced to participate. You are quite correct in pointing out that in a community of people and their interests, unanimous agreement is nearly impossible. My answer is, so what? If 80% of the people think that a community swimming pool should be built, let them build it, pay for it and use it. Just don't try to force me to pay for it. I realize that I then have no right to use it. Fine. In fact, if only 2% think that a swimming pool is a good idea, let them build a small one and keep the rest of us anti-social misfits out of it! Now, substitute some other phrase for "swimming pool", such as "public education system" and repeat the above paragraph. Incidentally, if the people building the "swimming pool" feel that it is in their interest that everyone should have a chance to "swim" free of charge, then I have no objection to them letting in anyone they want. After all, they paid for it. I just want the freedom to act on my own value judgments, not to be forced into accepting those of others. By the way, I personally place a very high value on providing top-quality education to students of high ability. To this end, I have rechanneled all of my charitable contributions to the private school that I attended for four years. My contributions are restricted to providing tuition assistance to those who cannot financially afford the school otherwise. I encourage others to support this institution also, but I don't feel that they are in any way obligated to. If it's worth supporting, and people want it to exist bad enough, they will support it. Mike Gray, AT&T Bell Labs, WH